Graham Caswell

The Talanoa Dialogue on Climate Change

Background

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is a treaty between essentially every national government on earth and is the collective response of humanity to climate change. Every year the 197 governments that are party to this agreement meet in what are called a ‘Conference of the Parties’ (or COP). The next meeting (to be held in Poland in December) will be the 24th COP.

Confusingly, “UNFCCC” is also the name of the United Nations Secretariat charged with supporting the operations of the convention and the COPs. The 197 governments get together once a year and it’s up to the UNFCCC Secretariat to organise it all and to mediate, negotiate and politic though this maze of interests to come up with a coherent position that all can or will adopt. The 2015 Paris Climate Accord was such an agreement.

At the last meeting (COP 23) one of the things that the 197 governments voted to do was to start a “facilitative dialogue” (decision 1/CP.21, paragraph 20). This ‘Talanoa Dialogue’ (named after a Pacific Island word for inclusive, participatory and transparent discussion) is intended to be “constructive, facilitative and solutions oriented“. It is open to ‘non-party stakeholders’ (i.e. everybody) and it essentially involves making a submission through a dedicated website. These submissions will be discussed (along with a lot of other things) at an advance meeting this May, and will then be summarised in a synthesis report for discussion at the COP24 meeting in December. The deadline for submissions for discussion in the May pre-conference is April 2nd. In practical terms that’s two weeks from this Friday.

Current Situation

It’s not easy to find the UNFCCC Talanoa Dialogue website (it’s not optimised for search engines and only a few other websites link to it, so it’s on the second page of a Google search). Although just a simple website it’s grandly called a “platform” and a “portal” but there has been little or no publicity or promotion for the website or process (if there has been any promotion it’s been very ineffective). The stark contrast between the discription of the intention (“inclusive, participatory and transparent dialogue”) and the impenetrable legalese of the mandate would be almost funny if the arctic wasn’t melting. In general (and if you know about it… and if you can find it…) the Talanoa Dialogue website offers the basic information and functionality required by the COP23 decision, but nothing else.

What’s most interesting and disturbing, however, are the submissions that have been recieved so far. Remember, this is the global mechanism for groups, organisations, individuals, businesses, academics and other parties interested and involved in climate change to contribute their perspectives, ideas and concerns into the global mitigation process. This is the entire governance of the planet earth, representing the entire human species, and focusing on the vast, urgent and existential issue of climate change. The deadline is two weeks from Friday and there have been exactly four submissions.

Two of those submissions are previously-published academic papers and one is a previously-published report from a UN-sponsored group. The only actual, real submission is a 16-page document from a 177-employee institute of the Japanese government with the core conclusion that carbon pricing in necessary.

Just think about that for a moment: Climate change is the biggest, most important, most potentially catastrophic problem that the human species has ever faced. All of the goverments of all of the nations of the planet earth have agreed that there be an “inclusive, participatory and transparent dialogue” through which any interested party can communicate their information, ideas, and concerns. Think of all the millions of people, all the organisations, all of the billions of dollars, euros, pounds and yen, all of the time and energy and resources, all focused on this one vast and urgent issue. And with the deadline just a couple of weeks away there’s just one real submission of a few pages, stating the obvious.

Two weeks left and only one real submission so far. Just think about that.

Proposal

I therefore propose, suggest, urge, plead and beg of you the following:

(1) Circulate this message and other information and awareness of the Talanoa Dialogue to as many people as you possibly can, as quickly as you can – and especially to those who’s work or passion involves climate change. The deadline is in a few weeks and nobody knows about it. Publicise it as much as you can.

(2) Make a submission to the Talanoa Dialogue process before the April 2nd deadline. It would be much better if you could do this on behalf of an organisation of some sort. Any submission would be better than no submission.

(3) If you are not sure about what to say in your submission, can I strongly suggest that you investigate and learn about carbon fee and dividend. This revenue-neutral policy puts a real, serious, behaviour-changing tax on carbon and redistributes the proceeds to everyone equally. Everybody’s prices go up, and everybody gets a monthly cheque. For most people the cheque is bigger than the price increases, protecting the poor and the middle class while dramatically inventivising people and markets away from carbon.

Carbon fee and dividend is politically realistic, and has political support from both the Right and the Left. It’s the only way to internalise the costs of climate change into the price of carbon without forcing the poor and middle class to freeze in the dark. In other words, fee and dividend is the only fair and politically possible way to include the costs of climate change into the price of carbon. If you don’t know what specific policy to suggest to the governments of the world in your submission, you could do much worse than propose carbon fee and dividend.

Conclusion

The Talanoa Dialogue for non-party stakeholders is the United Nations, on behalf of all of the governments of the people of the planet earth, asking for your views, opinions and ideas on what to do about climate change. If this process is to be anything more than a joke, a farce and a tragedy, then surely it needs to be known about and used.

This is climate change. It is our planet, our future and the future of our children, our grandchildren and of all the generations yet to come. We are the ones who can do something about this – it is up to us. This is the way to influence, however slightly, the entire direction of our planet and our human peoples on this urgent and existential crisis. The governments of the world have asked for your opinion about what should be done about climate change. The first deadline is very soon.

Please, please don’t ignore it.

The Answer to Trump is a Basic Income

Across the western world and beyond, the political status quo is crumbling. In response to the effects of automation and globalisation on the sufficiency and security of labour and incomes, and in the light of clear, blatant, and unambiguous unfairness in our political economic system, voters are revolting. Electorates in nation after nation, in election after election, are abandoning traditional ideologies, loyalties and political parties in favour of new radicals, revolutionaries, nationalists and populists from both the Left and the Right. Sometimes it seems like their policies are from both Right and Left.

In the UK the narrowness of the Scottish independence defeat was a surprise, the popularity and rise of Jeremy Corbyn to the leadership of the British Labour Party has been a surprise and, of course, the loss of the Brexit referendum was a surprise. In France it’s Marine Le Pen, in Iceland the Pirate Party, in Spain Podemos. In the United States, of course, there is Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Everywhere the barbarians are at the gate, and the comfortable classes (and media) are surprised. After all, their theories say things aren’t so bad.

“We want change – real change, structural change. This system is by now intolerable”. – Pope Francis

But to many ordinary people – to voters – struggling to pay their rent, or their car insurance, or their utility bills – for the Amazon packers, the Uber drivers, the so-called freelancers and contractors of the Gig economy, and for the ones left behind when manufacturing moved on – for them it wasn’t a surprise. Their political anger, cynicism and sense of injustice is palpable. And since many see themselves as having nothing to lose, they are more and more willing to take political risks. Every country is seeing challenges to the intolerable economic stress, insecurity and unfairness of the Way Things Are. As Pope Francis spells out: “We are faced… with one complex crisis which is both social and environmental. We want change – real change, structural change. This system is by now intolerable”.

When the people are suffering and their politicians ignore them or are ineffective in relieving that suffering, there is a political vacuum. Voters who are unrepresented by existing politicians will seek new ones – it’s as simple as that. And the unscrupulous, self-interested and power-hungry will seek to fill that vacuum and meet that demand in whatever way they can – including relying on the corrosive division of identity politics.

We’re already seeing this across the western world and beyond, as growing income stress and insecurity result in populist political challenges and political (and ideological) instability. And as the pain and the blatant and self-evident unfairness grows, so too will this political pressure.

Long before the 1% own it all, in some major country there will be the election either of a disastrous, conflict-causing leader, or of a pragmatic revolutionary agent of positive change. Either the problem will be solved, or change will happen – there is no middle ground any more. And that major country, whichever is the first to take that leap, will be an example – either a horrific example or a shining example – to the entire world.

Brexit may be that example, or maybe Trump will be. Or perhaps it will be France and Marine Le Pen. Or maybe it’ll be Jeremy Corbyn, or somebody who rises in his reinvention of the British Labour party. It’s too early to tell. But until individual economic stress and insecurity are alleviated it’s only a matter of when.

But how can economic stress and insecurity be alleviated without restricting the technology and globalisation that’s causing it? If you don’t now the answer to this, then you’re not paying attention to important economic experiments planned or underway in Canada, Finland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and elsewhere.

Simply put, the answer to Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, Brexit, Front Nationale, Jeremy Corbyn and all the other challengers is a Basic Income.

‘Taming the Populists’ with Waffle

Note: This post is a response to an opinion piece by Javier Solana. Since it’s a response, if you don’t want to waste your time you’ll have to read the original article first.

I’m getting sick of this waffle.

Solana may have finally grasped the problem – but that’s hardly grounds for congratulations. After all, hundreds of millions of ordinary, struggling people supporting Trump, Corbyn, Wilders, Sanders, Le Pen, Iglesias, Ukip, Syriza, the Austrian Freedom Party and all the other radical challengers to the system figured that out years ago when they had a problem paying the rent or insuring the car. Welcome to obvious, practical economic reality, Mr. Solana!

Javier Solana, waffler — Former EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, Secretary-General of NATO, and Foreign Minister of Spain, and currently President of the ESADE Center for Global Economy and Geopolitics, Distinguished Fellow at the Brookings Institution, and a member of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Europe, and waffler, the “Most Excellent” Javier Solana.

You’d wonder why somebody as clearly smart as Solana can be so emotionally and empathetically dumb. I guess that’s what comes of having more money than you could ever morally need for most of your live, and having yourself and your family assured of economic security. Meanwhile, back in the real world with the rest of us, the electricity bill is due… No wonder they just don’t get it.

And look at his solutions: “Bold initiatives to tackle inequality”, “stopgap measures”, better and smarter education and training, “improve global governance” and, of course, the admonition that “leaders must ensure that discussion is translated into real action”.

What a crock of nonsense! What a weasly, vague, wishy-washy, meaningless list of nonsense! No wonder people despise politicians who come out with drivel like this. Oh, it sounds great – it all sounds wonderful! But the problem is that it doesn’t actually MEAN anything at all. What do the words “bold”, “better”, “improve”, “ensure” and “real action” actually mean? There’s nothing specific, nothing explicit, nothing defined, nothing precise, nothing clear and nothing real about whatever it is he’s talking about. What, exactly is he proposing? What, specifically, is he suggesting? Where can I find a link to the text of the law that he’s seeking to implement?

Nowhere, that’s where. This is all called ‘waffle’.

And it’s not even very good waffle. Does he really think that redundant factory workers, Uber drivers, Amazon packers, fast food servers and all the many millions of others struggling near or below the median income – does he really think that they’re all going to brush up on their math skills and get jobs writing code for Google? Do we all have to be high-tech entrepreneurs now? Is that it? What a crock!

And what are these “stopgap measures”? I’ll tell you what they are. Sometimes you’re forced by circumstances to do the right thing, but you don’t want to do it, and so you keep reminding everyone that it’s only temporary. QE is a ‘stopgap measure’, for example. Whatever Solana’s “stopgap” measures” are (and like I said, it’s all waffle), he doesn’t want you to think they might be permanent. After all, we don’t want real change, do we.

And don’t get me started about his idea that huge sections of the population have to be “tamed”!

Disconnected, bubble-insulated, comfortably status quo nonsense from a waffler, in my opinion.

Trump is a Symptom

The rise of Donald Trump to credibly contest for the presidency of the United States is not a phenomenon – it’s the symptom of a phenomenon. Other symptoms include Brexit and the rise of Jeremy Corbyn, Geert Wilders, Podemos, the Austrian Freedom Party, Syriza, Five Star, the Icelandic Pirates, and many others across the western world and beyond. In election after election and in nation after nation we are witnessing an ongoing and growing political revolution.

The phenomenon behind this revolution is the devaluation and destabilisation of labour by automation, the internet, outsourcing, offshoring and financialisation – in other words, the devaluation of labour by technology and globalisation. As technology and globalisation concentrate income and capital in the wealthy, developed west the majority is experiencing rising core, unavoidable costs (especially housing), while incomes have stagnated. The result is mass and increasing personal economic stress and insecurity. The political revolution we are witnessing across the western world isn’t ideological – it’s personal.

The median income here in Ireland is about €340 a week. In the UK it’s around £300 a week. In Germany it’s about €400 a week. * Try paying rent, electricity, waste collection, phone, internet, car tax, insurance, property tax and all the rest from that – and that’s before groceries, clothes, household necessities, etc. And don’t even think about a doctor’s visit, or a sick pet, or a car breakdown. When you live on the median income every emergency is also a financial emergency. Christmas is a nightmare.

That’s half the population of some of the richest countries in the world with some of the most generous social welfare systems in the world. It’s much worse elsewhere – especially in the US, with a median income about $550/wk and far fewer public services. Of course, many people above the median income are struggling too – and many more have a loved one who is struggling. Together, they are the majority.

And this majority is not represented in either politics or media. A large part of the reason for this is that high salaries of politicians and popular media personalities. When you watch a TV political discussion you’re usually listening to a couple of 200Ks, a 150K and maybe a few 100Ks moderated by a 500K in countries with median incomes of only of 15K – 25K. Even the almost exclusive use of the ‘average’ (i.e. the mean) to represent wage and income figures distorts public discussion to make things seem better than they are (because the mean is skewed upwards by higher earners). You almost never hear about median incomes and wages – the incomes and wages half the population actually live on.

Skewed and out of touch coverage and discussion from the bubble of the ‘mainstream media’, combined with the secure, comfortable lives of themselves and their loved ones, is why so many established, ‘status quo’ politicians just don’t get it. They just don’t see an emergency, while more and more of their constituents live in a constant state of emergency. They think small, incremental improvements are enough, and that risks are not necessary. At best they seem useless.

And there’s is the sheer, blatant, clear, obvious and very unfair injustice that the struggling majority see all around them. The bank bailouts, the too-big-to-jail bank criminals, the tax avoidance, the revolving door between government and Goldman Sachs, the corporate subsidies, and all the rest. Again, politicians seem useless in the face of global corporate and financial power. For growing numbers of people it is no longer their system. It is no longer their government.

Essentially, there is a political vacuum. There is a vast and growing political need, and no sign of governing politicians even recognising that need, never mind meaningfully addressing it. Every mainstream political choice seems to be between the lesser of two evils. Not only is there no coherent plan to practically address the people’s pain – there’s not even a coherent theory, idea or ideology within which to frame such a plan. The ship is on the rocks and the water is pouring in below decks, while the fat and comfortable captains fuss about details.

Into this political vacuum has poured two kinds of challengers – ‘Us vs Them’ haters on one side, and rusty Marxist types on the other. Either would be an economic disaster in the real, practical world – as Brexit is. Whatever the solution to the income problem is, it must involve both the market freedom that makes our abundance possible, and the absolute personal and social security and opportunity that makes meaningful social (and market) access possible. After all, it’s hardly a free market if, under threat of homelessness, the only thing you have to sell is minimum wage labour.

The labour effects of technology and globalisation are accelerating, and the losers are beginning to outnumber the winners. Financial disaster continues to threaten as the austerity from the last crisis continues. Growth remains weak despite negligible interest rates. And many hundreds of millions of people continue to lurch from financial disaster to financial disaster with no hope for their future in an unfair system. The present situation is intolerable to far too many, and so it will change. Trump is just one of the options.
* Note: To their great credit the OECD is now requiring and publishing median income figures for member states, which is where these median income figures come from. See http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=IDD for more.